Topic: Now that Musk is buying Twitter for "free speech"...
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #103,623
...I give it one week before it is 100% angry QAnon nutters yelling at one another in all caps.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,168,553
Isn't already that? Weebs and right wingers voicing their weird opinions? Pretty sure that's what it is.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 26 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,558
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,559
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,563
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,564
we are playthings to the elite
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,585
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,593
Elon musk doesn't care about free speech, he just likes being in the news for something other than his companies troubles.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,599
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,601
@OP
Who gives a shit, who gives a fuck.
"Old Lonely Asshole Tries To Buy Acceptance With A Stupid Purchase" would be the headline.
Who gives a shit, who gives a fuck.
"Old Lonely Asshole Tries To Buy Acceptance With A Stupid Purchase" would be the headline.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 59 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,607
Seems like the demonRATS are getting a little hot under the collar.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 31 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,608
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 31 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,615
@1,168,558 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> No it's a lot of people with weird genders
So... not much different than Minichan.
@OP
No matter what Elon Musk does, I think he's just signing up to be the next public punching bag. The left will blame him for confusing trolling and pseudoscience for free speech. The right-wing oppression narrative will continue apace as tales of deleted tweets and shadowbans elicit jowl-shaking rage from alt-right neckbeards and tech-illiterate senators.
People will just have a new public figure to blame for whatever imagined injustice they feel was visited on them. And that person just paid 44 billion dollars for the privilege.
> No it's a lot of people with weird genders
So... not much different than Minichan.
@OP
No matter what Elon Musk does, I think he's just signing up to be the next public punching bag. The left will blame him for confusing trolling and pseudoscience for free speech. The right-wing oppression narrative will continue apace as tales of deleted tweets and shadowbans elicit jowl-shaking rage from alt-right neckbeards and tech-illiterate senators.
People will just have a new public figure to blame for whatever imagined injustice they feel was visited on them. And that person just paid 44 billion dollars for the privilege.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 6 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,633
@1,168,608 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Careful. He might hire a private investigator and call you a pedophile if you hurt his feelings.
Careful. He might hire a private investigator and call you a pedophile if you hurt his feelings.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,637
He will unban Trump
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,644
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,645
If he was truly interested in Free Speech he would have given Kimmo $50 billion to fund AnonTalk.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,647
@1,168,608 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Care to elaborate? What have you heard of him doing that would suggest he is against free speech?
Care to elaborate? What have you heard of him doing that would suggest he is against free speech?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,649
@1,168,637 (J)
Trump already decided he wants to stay on his own social network, rather than have a significant audience.
Trump already decided he wants to stay on his own social network, rather than have a significant audience.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 34 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,654
@1,168,647 (F)
An account was tracking his personal flights via publicly available flight radar info and Elon offered to pay $5,000 for the guy to stop tweeting about it lol. Didn't even offer 5 figures! What a cheapskate.
An account was tracking his personal flights via publicly available flight radar info and Elon offered to pay $5,000 for the guy to stop tweeting about it lol. Didn't even offer 5 figures! What a cheapskate.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,657
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well that is a sort of free speech. People can say whatever they want unless Elon doesn't like it. Can you really fault that?
Well that is a sort of free speech. People can say whatever they want unless Elon doesn't like it. Can you really fault that?
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,664
@1,168,649 (L)
> Trump already decided he wants to stay on his own social network, rather than have a significant audience.
That was grift
> Trump already decided he wants to stay on his own social network, rather than have a significant audience.
That was grift
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,665
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,678
@1,168,647 (F)
Apparently he would dmca takedown videos of Tesla's malfunction, and supposedly he's used NDAs to be described as the founder of a couple of his companies
Apparently he would dmca takedown videos of Tesla's malfunction, and supposedly he's used NDAs to be described as the founder of a couple of his companies
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,721
Anonymous F double-posted this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,723
@1,168,654 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
@1,168,657 (M)
Cool. An example of Elon showing he cares about free speech; somebody created a bot that collected and published information about his whereabouts and he didn’t have that person killed, he didn’t dox that person, he didn’t have the police harass that person … he just said “please stop”
@1,168,657 (M)
Cool. An example of Elon showing he cares about free speech; somebody created a bot that collected and published information about his whereabouts and he didn’t have that person killed, he didn’t dox that person, he didn’t have the police harass that person … he just said “please stop”
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,724
@1,168,654 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That isn't anti free speech. Also if he were to pay more, it would incentive other people to create more bots
That isn't anti free speech. Also if he were to pay more, it would incentive other people to create more bots
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,758
@1,168,723 (F)
Paying someone to stop speaking is probably not something someone who cares strongly about free speech would do. He doesn't get credit for not committing felonies or worse, violating the Twitter ToS.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
How is trying to pay hush money to someone not anti free speech??? Have I entered the Twilight Zone? It's ok to just admit that Elon doesn't actually believe in the principles of free speech when they come into conflict with his life directly. Everyone's a hypocrite at the end of the day and he's not special in that regard.
We'll need to wait and see what he does with Twitter. My guess is he'll initially be very active but then quickly realize running the site is a tremendous pain in the ass and delegate it to either people who have been there awhile, in which case things will continue as normal, or weird zealots who tank the site and send it down the shitter. Either is fine with me because minichan can just pick up the slack as the world's premiere free speech forum.
Paying someone to stop speaking is probably not something someone who cares strongly about free speech would do. He doesn't get credit for not committing felonies or worse, violating the Twitter ToS.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
How is trying to pay hush money to someone not anti free speech??? Have I entered the Twilight Zone? It's ok to just admit that Elon doesn't actually believe in the principles of free speech when they come into conflict with his life directly. Everyone's a hypocrite at the end of the day and he's not special in that regard.
We'll need to wait and see what he does with Twitter. My guess is he'll initially be very active but then quickly realize running the site is a tremendous pain in the ass and delegate it to either people who have been there awhile, in which case things will continue as normal, or weird zealots who tank the site and send it down the shitter. Either is fine with me because minichan can just pick up the slack as the world's premiere free speech forum.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,759
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Free speech is not arresting someone, banning someone,or hurting someone for their speech. It isn't anti free speech to ask someone not to say something
Free speech is not arresting someone, banning someone,or hurting someone for their speech. It isn't anti free speech to ask someone not to say something
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,763
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Paying someone to not speak is consistent with respect for the principles of free speech? Idk that seems plainly wrong to me. I guess they call it the marketplace of ideas because wealthy people can own it all for a pittance, lol.
Paying someone to not speak is consistent with respect for the principles of free speech? Idk that seems plainly wrong to me. I guess they call it the marketplace of ideas because wealthy people can own it all for a pittance, lol.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,766
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Paying people to keep secrets has always existed and isn't a violation of free speech
Paying people to keep secrets has always existed and isn't a violation of free speech
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,767
Kook is right, it’s a voluntary exchange. Hush money doesn’t restrict speech unless both sides agree to. It’s not like Elon is murdering, banning, or censoring the guy if he doesn’t take the $5000
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,768
If fake anon secretly sucked off a guy and told the guy to not tell anyone because he wasn’t out of the closet it would not be “anti free speech”
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,773
You asked someone not to stalk you? GOTCHA!
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,798
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,801
@1,168,766 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
@1,168,768 (J)
@1,168,773 (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
Again this is not secret and not stalking. It's a guy using a bot to take publicly available flight radar information and post it to twitter. There is no trust violation or anything like that here.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I agree in general. I personally don't really care strongly about him. I think Tesla and SpaceX are cool. I think The Boring Company and Neuralink are probably two big failures in the making. I also think he has spent so much time on Twitter that he thinks he can run it better than the people currently doing it and that seems unlikely to me. The problem with fabulously wealthy people like him is they do not have people they listen to who can tell them when they're getting in over their head. This is one of those scenarios.
@1,168,768 (J)
@1,168,773 (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
Again this is not secret and not stalking. It's a guy using a bot to take publicly available flight radar information and post it to twitter. There is no trust violation or anything like that here.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I agree in general. I personally don't really care strongly about him. I think Tesla and SpaceX are cool. I think The Boring Company and Neuralink are probably two big failures in the making. I also think he has spent so much time on Twitter that he thinks he can run it better than the people currently doing it and that seems unlikely to me. The problem with fabulously wealthy people like him is they do not have people they listen to who can tell them when they're getting in over their head. This is one of those scenarios.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,802
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm not a Musk fan as You Know.
And I don't want him to institute policies on twitter that censor the narrative from either side.
If my argument is sound, it will stand on it's own against ANY opposition IF I'm allowed to be heard.
Personally, I want opposing arguments to be uncensored and if Musk or anyone else is willing to supply such a forum, I will be All In!
I'm not a Musk fan as You Know.
And I don't want him to institute policies on twitter that censor the narrative from either side.
If my argument is sound, it will stand on it's own against ANY opposition IF I'm allowed to be heard.
Personally, I want opposing arguments to be uncensored and if Musk or anyone else is willing to supply such a forum, I will be All In!
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,804
@1,168,801 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Paying someone to not post something that isn’t a secret or stalking doesn’t change the underlying fact that it’s a voluntary exchange and therefore not anti free speech
Elon is not somehow forcing the Twitter guy to stop posting. In fact, the Twitter guy is still posting I believe
Paying someone to not post something that isn’t a secret or stalking doesn’t change the underlying fact that it’s a voluntary exchange and therefore not anti free speech
Elon is not somehow forcing the Twitter guy to stop posting. In fact, the Twitter guy is still posting I believe
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,806
@1,168,802 (N)
Thank you nethideaway copypasta guy. Your contribution is totally useless as usual.
@previous (J)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here but I think paying someone to not tweet things about you is not something that a free speech absolutist like Musk purports to be would do. Once he takes over Twitter (assuming the deal goes through) we'll see how consistently he applies these principles. My guess will be that all speech won't treated the same but we'll need him to fuck up before other people agree apparently.
Thank you nethideaway copypasta guy. Your contribution is totally useless as usual.
@previous (J)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here but I think paying someone to not tweet things about you is not something that a free speech absolutist like Musk purports to be would do. Once he takes over Twitter (assuming the deal goes through) we'll see how consistently he applies these principles. My guess will be that all speech won't treated the same but we'll need him to fuck up before other people agree apparently.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,809
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Some godforsaken random internet forum. It might be nethideaway.com or somewhere else, I can't recall.
Some godforsaken random internet forum. It might be nethideaway.com or somewhere else, I can't recall.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,812
@1,168,801 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That doesn't make it anti free speech because he isn't forcing anyone or preventing anyone from saying or even doing something
That doesn't make it anti free speech because he isn't forcing anyone or preventing anyone from saying or even doing something
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,813
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Were just talking in circles at this point, but a world in which wealthy people buy the silence of poor people is not a world with free speech. There's a literally a price on it lol.
Were just talking in circles at this point, but a world in which wealthy people buy the silence of poor people is not a world with free speech. There's a literally a price on it lol.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,814
Will his workers unionize?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,817
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,818
@1,168,814 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
He's offered unionization at his factories and they workers turn it down
He's offered unionization at his factories and they workers turn it down
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,819
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,820
@1,168,813 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you operating under the assumption that “free speech” means free as in ‘gratis’???
Also, in the United States the courts have ruled that money is speech, so offering $5000 to stop publishing one’s DOX is literally the same as saying “please stop”
Are you operating under the assumption that “free speech” means free as in ‘gratis’???
Also, in the United States the courts have ruled that money is speech, so offering $5000 to stop publishing one’s DOX is literally the same as saying “please stop”
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,821
@1,168,819 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
By freely giving information and not trying to discourage it in any way
By freely giving information and not trying to discourage it in any way
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,822
@1,168,818 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
And after a quick Google, did he "offer" it after this event? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/business/musk-labor-board.html
And after a quick Google, did he "offer" it after this event? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/business/musk-labor-board.html
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,823
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
He didn’t threaten anyone about losing stock options, that is just what would have happened! He educated his workers about that fact
He didn’t threaten anyone about losing stock options, that is just what would have happened! He educated his workers about that fact
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,824
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,825
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
I personally don't have a problem with warning people that they will likely lose their stock options if they unionize
I personally don't have a problem with warning people that they will likely lose their stock options if they unionize
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,826
@1,168,819 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> How does an employer offer unionization? Isn't it always an option?
By stating in plain terms that they are welcome to unionize and the company will do nothing to stop them
> How does an employer offer unionization? Isn't it always an option?
By stating in plain terms that they are welcome to unionize and the company will do nothing to stop them
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,827
@1,168,820 (F)
No I know what free speech means. I just find it amusing that free has a double meaning here.
No I know what free speech means. I just find it amusing that free has a double meaning here.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,828
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Now address the other half of the post, where I stated that in the United States giving somebody money is speech
Now address the other half of the post, where I stated that in the United States giving somebody money is speech
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,829
@1,168,823 (F)
@1,168,825 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
But even in the 90's, again with just some mild googling about unions and stock options, there's nothing about unions specifically that would make them lose their stock options, the union in question just has to include stock options in their negotiation.
@1,168,825 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
But even in the 90's, again with just some mild googling about unions and stock options, there's nothing about unions specifically that would make them lose their stock options, the union in question just has to include stock options in their negotiation.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 44 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,830
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Union representatives almost always give up stock options in exchange for other shit. Google it
Union representatives almost always give up stock options in exchange for other shit. Google it
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,831
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,832
@1,168,823 (F)
@1,168,825 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/smlr/files/Documents/Faculty-Staff-Docs/broad-based%2520employee%2520stock%2520options%2520a%2520union-nonunion%2520comparison.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiikraCxrT3AhVvLDQIHVlOBU8QFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1W0n4-xwjJ8PLFk-j5IjSU
But I'm not all the way through it, I'll have to read it after work
@1,168,825 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/smlr/files/Documents/Faculty-Staff-Docs/broad-based%2520employee%2520stock%2520options%2520a%2520union-nonunion%2520comparison.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiikraCxrT3AhVvLDQIHVlOBU8QFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1W0n4-xwjJ8PLFk-j5IjSU
But I'm not all the way through it, I'll have to read it after work
Dead !Pool..v42s double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,833
@1,168,830 (F)
So then do what them unionized Amazon workers did and start their own union? Is it a unions fault that a company would refuse stock options in lieu of other compensation in order to deter a union being formed?
So then do what them unionized Amazon workers did and start their own union? Is it a unions fault that a company would refuse stock options in lieu of other compensation in order to deter a union being formed?
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,834
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Unions act against the interests of the employees. Period. Is it the union’s fault? I guess not, since they’re always voted into place!
Elon did nothing wrong by tweeting that Unions never negotiate for stock options! It’s true!
Unions act against the interests of the employees. Period. Is it the union’s fault? I guess not, since they’re always voted into place!
Elon did nothing wrong by tweeting that Unions never negotiate for stock options! It’s true!
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,835
@previous (F)
@previous (F)
> Unions act against the interests of the employees. Period. Is it the union’s fault? I guess not, since they’re always voted into place!
I'm pretty sure that unions help everyone involved, unless it's from the point of view of more instant gratification.
> Elon did nothing wrong by tweeting that Unions never negotiate for stock options! It’s true!
Well, the courts disagree with you, and they also frown on firing people who are fostering union action.
@previous (F)
> Unions act against the interests of the employees. Period. Is it the union’s fault? I guess not, since they’re always voted into place!
I'm pretty sure that unions help everyone involved, unless it's from the point of view of more instant gratification.
> Elon did nothing wrong by tweeting that Unions never negotiate for stock options! It’s true!
Well, the courts disagree with you, and they also frown on firing people who are fostering union action.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,836
@1,168,828 (F)
Paying someone to not spread publicly available information is actually reducing the amount of public speech happening. I don't trust anyone who would do that and then talk about how much they value the free flow of information because well...they don't.
Paying someone to not spread publicly available information is actually reducing the amount of public speech happening. I don't trust anyone who would do that and then talk about how much they value the free flow of information because well...they don't.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,837
Also it’s hilarious that someone has brought up this example of Elon’s speech being wrongly limited by the government while claiming Elon is anti-free-speech
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,838
@1,168,835 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Mr.Ortiz was fired from Tesla for what was essentially corporate espionage, that judge was an R-word. Tesla employees don’t want to unionize, anyway; it would have happened by now if they truly thought they could get a “better deal” through unionization. There is no union-busting happening at the company!
Mr.Ortiz was fired from Tesla for what was essentially corporate espionage, that judge was an R-word. Tesla employees don’t want to unionize, anyway; it would have happened by now if they truly thought they could get a “better deal” through unionization. There is no union-busting happening at the company!
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,839
@1,168,836 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I can't believe that you consider paying someone to not announce where you fly as being anti free speech. Especially if you so don't consider banning people from social media as anti free speech
I can't believe that you consider paying someone to not announce where you fly as being anti free speech. Especially if you so don't consider banning people from social media as anti free speech
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,840
@1,168,836 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
He had an open discussion about it on his twitter account, he outlined the reasons it was a bad idea, and dangerous to have this twitter bot running… he offered the person running the bot a sum of money as a way of saying “cute, but please stop”, and he hasn’t filed legal action or done anything to harm the person running the dangerous twitter bot…
sounds like it was all in the realm of free speech, Mark
He had an open discussion about it on his twitter account, he outlined the reasons it was a bad idea, and dangerous to have this twitter bot running… he offered the person running the bot a sum of money as a way of saying “cute, but please stop”, and he hasn’t filed legal action or done anything to harm the person running the dangerous twitter bot…
sounds like it was all in the realm of free speech, Mark
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,845
When Trump was President, he made a pledge to "sue" journalists "for lots of money" if they said something he didn't like.
Now his supporters are suddenly free speech absolutists.
What changed? 🤔
Now his supporters are suddenly free speech absolutists.
What changed? 🤔
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,846
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,847
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
One of his sycophant attorneys sued Elon Musk for calling a cave diver a pedophile.
One of his sycophant attorneys sued Elon Musk for calling a cave diver a pedophile.
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,848
@1,168,801 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Again this is not secret and not stalking. It's a guy using a bot to take publicly available flight radar information and post it to twitter.
Does data have to be secret, in order for it to be stalking to publicize it? Does context not matter in the publication of data? Is it not possible to harass a person by using public data?
> Again this is not secret and not stalking. It's a guy using a bot to take publicly available flight radar information and post it to twitter.
Does data have to be secret, in order for it to be stalking to publicize it? Does context not matter in the publication of data? Is it not possible to harass a person by using public data?
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,849
Really weird take
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,850
@1,168,846 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
...and that attorney didn't do a very good job.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7887513/160/vernon-unsworth-v-elon-musk/
...and that attorney didn't do a very good job.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7887513/160/vernon-unsworth-v-elon-musk/
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,851
@previous (G)
But what does this have to do with Trump supporters being free speech absolutists? Trump is not connected to this current situation at ll
But what does this have to do with Trump supporters being free speech absolutists? Trump is not connected to this current situation at ll
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,852
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,853
@1,168,848 (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
Imagine if someone finds out your complete daily routine. Where you eat, where you work etc, and puts it on social media. And when you try and pay them to stop,people call you anti free speech
Imagine if someone finds out your complete daily routine. Where you eat, where you work etc, and puts it on social media. And when you try and pay them to stop,people call you anti free speech
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,854
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,855
@1,168,853 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Imagine if someone finds out your complete daily routine. Where you eat, where you work etc, and puts it on social media. And when you try and pay them to stop,people call you anti free speech
I'd tell him to cry moar. 😂
> Imagine if someone finds out your complete daily routine. Where you eat, where you work etc, and puts it on social media. And when you try and pay them to stop,people call you anti free speech
I'd tell him to cry moar. 😂
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,856
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,857
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,858
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,861
I think that Anon F and Kook are making Elon out to be a lot more rational and level-headed than he really is. There was that issue a while ago when he threw a tantrum over that diver insulting his useless mini-submarine, there was that thing where he got mad at the media for being critical of his cars and he fantasized about making a website called "Pravda" to shame them in response.
My point is, that I think that his reaction to that Twitter bot was an emotional knee-jerk more than anything, he's known to have strong and disproportionate reactions to things. And Fake anon is correct to point out that his handling of that situation is good reason to expect that his attitude to free speech may not be consistent.
My point is, that I think that his reaction to that Twitter bot was an emotional knee-jerk more than anything, he's known to have strong and disproportionate reactions to things. And Fake anon is correct to point out that his handling of that situation is good reason to expect that his attitude to free speech may not be consistent.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,863
@previous (M)
I'm not calling him fully rational, I'm saying paying someone to not disclose your whereabouts isn't anti free speech
I'm not calling him fully rational, I'm saying paying someone to not disclose your whereabouts isn't anti free speech
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,864
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,868
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,869
@1,168,864 (S)
Yes, this is a man we can trust to champion free speech. The guy who hires a PI to try to discredit a guy who insulted him.
@previous (F)
This really isn't the same as the Twitter bot and it actually hurts your case. Another example of him throwing a tantrum and trying to shut down someone saying something harmless.
Yes, this is a man we can trust to champion free speech. The guy who hires a PI to try to discredit a guy who insulted him.
@previous (F)
This really isn't the same as the Twitter bot and it actually hurts your case. Another example of him throwing a tantrum and trying to shut down someone saying something harmless.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,870
@1,168,838 (F)
It looks like he was fired for organizing union stuff on company time, but ok.
As someone sitting on the board of the company people are considering unionizing, it isn't considered union busting to say the board, that he sits on, wouldn't agree to stock options through a union negotiation?
It looks like he was fired for organizing union stuff on company time, but ok.
As someone sitting on the board of the company people are considering unionizing, it isn't considered union busting to say the board, that he sits on, wouldn't agree to stock options through a union negotiation?
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,871
@1,168,868 (F)
The private investigator fabricated the info he gave to Musk, and Musk bought it for $50,000.
The private investigator fabricated the info he gave to Musk, and Musk bought it for $50,000.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,872
@1,168,870 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
He was fired for posting screenshots of employee data from Tesla’s internal systems onto a public Facebook page. Perfectly justified firing
He was fired for posting screenshots of employee data from Tesla’s internal systems onto a public Facebook page. Perfectly justified firing
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,873
@1,168,870 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Tesla employees already have stock options… that would have gone away if they unionized because some greedy union-operating corporate entity would come in and automatically throw away that benefit on purpose, and in exchange for nothing. It is a tale as old as, well, labor unions
Tesla employees already have stock options… that would have gone away if they unionized because some greedy union-operating corporate entity would come in and automatically throw away that benefit on purpose, and in exchange for nothing. It is a tale as old as, well, labor unions
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,874
@previous (F)
The NLRB disagrees with your opinion.
You seem very passionate with your defense of a fat Boer's corporate misdeeds.
The NLRB disagrees with your opinion.
You seem very passionate with your defense of a fat Boer's corporate misdeeds.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,877
@previous (G)
well all of his detractors just post the same 4 articles over and over again alongside shit-tier takes. I’ll admit it when I see him do anything seriously corrupt
well all of his detractors just post the same 4 articles over and over again alongside shit-tier takes. I’ll admit it when I see him do anything seriously corrupt
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,878
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,879
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,881
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,883
@previous (G)
1. “He is an evil union buster” (false)
2. “His dad used slaves to mine blood emeralds” (false)
3. “He illegally defamed a white diver guy who was living in Thailand by calling him ‘pedo guy’ “ (false)
4. “It was illegal for him to exercise his free-speech™ when he said he was considering taking his own company private” (false)
Bla bla bla, those are the main 4 and they’re all false
1. “He is an evil union buster” (false)
2. “His dad used slaves to mine blood emeralds” (false)
3. “He illegally defamed a white diver guy who was living in Thailand by calling him ‘pedo guy’ “ (false)
4. “It was illegal for him to exercise his free-speech™ when he said he was considering taking his own company private” (false)
Bla bla bla, those are the main 4 and they’re all false
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,885
@previous (F)
> 3. “He illegally defamed a white diver guy who was living in Thailand by calling him ‘pedo guy’ “ (false)
Care to elaborate on this one?
> 3. “He illegally defamed a white diver guy who was living in Thailand by calling him ‘pedo guy’ “ (false)
Care to elaborate on this one?
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,886
@previous (G)
Elaborate on what? The court ruled that he didn’t defame the man by calling him a ‘pedo guy’
Elaborate on what? The court ruled that he didn’t defame the man by calling him a ‘pedo guy’
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,887
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,888
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,889
100 git
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,890
@1,168,888 (F)
If it was illegal, why was the case in civil court and not criminal court? Are you confusing California with Thailand? 🤔
Musk was dumb enough to believe the scam artist posting as a private eye.
If it was illegal, why was the case in civil court and not criminal court? Are you confusing California with Thailand? 🤔
Musk was dumb enough to believe the scam artist posting as a private eye.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,891
@1,168,665 (N)
> Buying a web site won't bring his dead kid back to life.
To his credit, resurrecting a neglected child costs more than $44 billion.
> Buying a web site won't bring his dead kid back to life.
To his credit, resurrecting a neglected child costs more than $44 billion.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,892
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,893
@previous (F)
> There’s a difference between illegal and criminal you stupid fuck
Did you mean "a difference between torts and crimes"? 🤔
> There’s a difference between illegal and criminal you stupid fuck
Did you mean "a difference between torts and crimes"? 🤔
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,894
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,895
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,896
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,897
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,898
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,899
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,901
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 49 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,168,908
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,080
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 34 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,085
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Why are you mad about the fact that he is a co-founder?
He was there from the earliest days (less than 8 months after incorporation papers were filed), oversaw the design and production of their first product and is legally allowed to call himself a co-founder. what's the problem, sis?
Why are you mad about the fact that he is a co-founder?
He was there from the earliest days (less than 8 months after incorporation papers were filed), oversaw the design and production of their first product and is legally allowed to call himself a co-founder. what's the problem, sis?
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,087
@previous (F)
Oh being a cofounder is awesome, I was under the impression that he promoted himself as the sole founder
Oh being a cofounder is awesome, I was under the impression that he promoted himself as the sole founder
boof replied with this 3 years ago, 1 month later, 1 month after the original post[^] [v] #1,176,968
